holga puzzler

After waiting (get this) ten frigging days for my new Holga 120N to arrive (from NY, I might add--wtf?), I see that the shutter release adapter I ordered with my first Holga will not fit on this camera. My plan was (and still is) to have a Holga that I will only use for shooting infrared film, hence the reason I was counting on the shutter release adapter to fit this new camera.

The problem seems to be with the Holga's newly repositioned tripod mount. Two of my Holgas ( a yellow 120N and a black CFN) have a tripod mount that is NOT centered beneath the lens barrel, making them compatible with the shutter release adapter I bought a few years ago. The camera that arrived today (again the 120N) has a tripod mount that is centered directly under the lens barrel, so the adapter will not fit. (My purple Holga TLR also has the centered tripod mount.)

I just got off the phone with B&H (by the by, this was not the NY place from which I ordered the Holga that just arrived--B&H's delivery rocks) to find out if the 120N they have for sale there has the centered tripod mount and/or to find out if the shutter release they are currently selling there is compatible with the centered tripod mount. Unfortunately, the call didn't result in a clear answer either way and the description for the adapter didn't help much. (although based on what I could glean from the image of the shutter release adapter housed there, it appears to be like the one I already have--one that fits over the non-centered tripod mount.)

so yeah: sigh.

So here's my work around. Not wanting to spend the 16 bucks to see if the shutter release adapter has been redesigned (i.e., if it has not been and I want to return the piece, I have to pay for the return shipping), I decided to return the 120N that arrived today (I don't have to pay return shipping for this) and ordered another Holgawood version of the 120N as the Holgawoods all appear (again, based on the online images there) to have the decentered tripod mount. I know my yellow one does anyway. So fingers crossed that the images don't lie.

As an aside, I did try, however briefly, researching this incompatibility problem online. I did a google search and then searched within flickr specifically. Nothing. Which is odd. Normally if I'm experiencing some photo oddity, there are at least 2-3 others experiencing the same or something very similar. I mean, I think back now to my problem with the dead spider in the practika viewfinder. Though it didn't help resolve my problem (the dead spider is still there), I felt less alone when another person reported having the same problem.

So Holga-people, what gives?

wtf? (on the Pentax "food mode"?)

Once upon a time I took a picture of a garbage can on campus. Of interest to me was the fact that whomever attempted to use the can prior to my walking past it had failed to hit the mark. On the top of the can, inches away from the hole into which trash is normally thrown was a half-melted ice cream cone. I suppose I was attempting to capture the carelessness of the user or maybe I was interested in capturing something that was not quite completely in its liquid state. I would have posted the picture here but I don't know that I considered it worth keeping, so I've subbed this other one in for it since this photo (taken with the Yashica D, the image was part of a project documenting a student project that involved them doing a parody of a cooking show) gets to the topic I want to address here: photographing food.

So I understand taking photographs of food for recipe books, online recipes or for covers of cooking magazines. I understand too the instructive/illustrative value of seeing an image of what one is trying to make, cook, bake, etc. What I don't get are all those pictures (many of which are really crappy and often times flash-assisted) of things people are about to it, want to eat, have partly eaten, can't finish. Don't get me wrong, I love food and I don't mind looking at it, thinking about it, writing about, etc. In fact, long, long ago I had plans to write a dissertation on cookbooks. I just don't understand the practice of photographing what you are about to it--diary-style, with a cell-phone. But maybe, in the end, it's mainly the quality, composition and color of most of the photos that I object to. I mean, it seems like a lot of meat eaters like to take pics of their meals and everything just seems like lumpy, brown gravy on a plate.

What's got me thinking about the food issue lately is that I've been researching the Pentax K-x, trying to come up with reasons why I don't want to buy this camera. The researching and review-reading has been fun and easy. Trying to talk myself out of wanting this camera has been the tough part. The best reason I can come up with for not buying the camera ultimately feels to me like a reason to buy the camera. I begin by acknowledging that the last thing I need is another camera. I go on to reason, however, that I certainly don't need a new film camera and that if I ended up getting another camera, I would need a new digital camera more than I'd need another new film camera. In the end, all I'm really saying here (I think) is that I don't need another film camera--any discussion about needing or not needing another digital camera kind of falls by the way side. This said, I'm assuming that if I were, once again, back to flirting with the idea of purchasing my all-time dream camera, the Kiev 88, what I'd be saying about types of cameras would be reversed.

But I digress. So I'm reading yet another review of the Pentax K-x and I learn that one of it's featured scene modes is for food. sigh. Maybe having a dedicated mode for it will make the pictures look better? I just don't get it. The photographing food thing, I mean. The jury is still out on whether I'll ultimately end up just getting the K-x.